Allahabad High Court
Yogesh vs State Of U.P. on 23 February, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29031 of 2019
Applicant :- Yogesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar,Nirvikar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kalyan Sundram Srivastava,Som Sundaram Shriwastav
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
2. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Dhaka, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri R.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.691 of 2015, under Sections 302 and 323 I.P.C., Police Station Kosikalan, District Mathura, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant and his brother was solemnized with the deceased and her real sister in the year 2003. The applicant is stated to have subjected the deceased person Seema to cruelty for demand of dowry. The deceased person is stated to have not been able to bear a child, as such the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have put her to death on 25.09.2015 before 6:00 AM.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The cause of death has been found to be strangulation. Learned counsel has further stated that the such allegations cannot be found truthful as two real sisters have been married to two real brothers and how could it be possible that one of them has been subjected to cruelty and put to death and the other has not been subjected to it. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.09.2015 and the trial is moving at a snail's pace, although seven prosecution witnesses have been examined. The complete up-to-dated order-sheet and the statements of the witnesses have been filed till 13.01.2023. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. The Fundamental Rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the applicant stands jeopardized. Learned counsel has further stated that the Investigating Officer was pleased to exonerate four other named accused persons. But, on an order of further investigation, one of the other named co-accused Karmpal and one Bharat Lal, who was not named in the FIR, have also been further charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer, but the other named three accused persons, namely, Gainda, Smt. Shakuntala and Smt. Durga have not been charge-sheeted. Learned counsel has further stated that not even an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved with respect to the said three accused persons. This fact also falsifies the prosecution story. There is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.09.2015. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:-
"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is at its conclusive end, but could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit and no application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved with respect to the exonerated three accused persons.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Yogesh involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 23.2.2023
Ravi Kant
